The Energy Revolution has begun and will change your lifestyle

Welcome to the Energy Blog

The Energy Blog is where all topics relating to The Energy Revolution are presented. Increasingly, expensive oil, coal and global warming are causing an energy revolution by requiring fossil fuels to be supplemented by alternative energy sources and by requiring changes in lifestyle. Please contact me with your comments and questions. Further Information about me can be found HERE.

April 19, 2008

Study Develops More Accurate CO2 Data

Purdue University press release: - A new, high- resolution interactive map of U.S. carbon dioxide emissions from fossil fuels has found that the emissions aren't all where we thought.

"For example, we've been attributing too many emissions to the northeastern United States, and it's looking like the southeastern U.S. is a much larger source than we had estimated previously.

"When you compare the old inventories to Vulcan, the new data show atmospheric CO2 differences that are as large as five parts per million in some U.S. regions in the late winter. The levels in the global atmosphere only rise one and a half part per million every year, so this is the equivalent of three years of global emissions in the atmosphere that isn't where we thought it was. This will be important for policy-makers and is enormousfrom a scientific point of view. It's shocking."

The maps and system, called Vulcan, show CO2 emissions at more than 100 times more detail than was available before. Until now, data on carbon dioxide emissions were reported, in the best cases, monthly at the level of an entire state. The Vulcan model examines CO2 emissions at local levels on an hourly basis.

It is claimed that carbon dioxide is the most important human-produced gas contributing to global climate change. The United States accounts for about 25 percent of global CO2 emissions.

Researchers say the maps also are more accurate than previous data because they are based on greenhouse gas emissions instead of estimates based on population in areas of the United States.

A preliminary analysis of the Vulcan data suggests that previous maps of U.S. fossil fuel emissions were inadequate for current scientific and policy-making needs, Gurney says.

The map above shows where CO2 is being emitted in the continental United States in 10-kilometer grids and combines data from sources including factories, automobiles on highways and power plants. The map offers more than 100 times the detail of previous inventories of carbon dioxide. The image displays metric tons of carbon per year per grid in a logarithmic base-10 scale. (Purdue University image/Kevin Gurney)

To create the Vulcan maps, the research team developed a method to extract the CO2 information by transforming data on local air pollution, such as carbon monoxide and nitrous oxide emissions, which are tracked by the Environmental Protection Agency, the U.S. Department of Energy and other governmental agencies.

"The high-resolution map from Vulcan also provides a picture of emission sources in a way that the public and policy-makers can understand, which may be helpful in discussing what we will do about the climate problem,"

The three-year Vulcon Project, funded by NASA and the U.S. Department of Energy under the North American Carbon Program, involved researchers from Purdue University, Colorado State University and Lawrence Berkeley National Laboratory, with the goal of quantifing North American fossil fuel carbon dioxide emissions at space and time scales much finer than has been achieved in the past. The purpose is to aid in quantification of the North American carbon budget and to support inverse estimation of carbon sources and sinks. . . . more here and here

I am a little late in publishing this, but I thought it was important enough to publish now, so that it could be read by those that hadn't seen it and it belongs in my archives. I believe in climate change and the fact that CO2 contributes to it, I am just not sure how much of climate change is caused by CO2. It is interesting to me that the two areas that I have lived, in Southeastern Wisconsin and Southeastern New Hampshire are both in areas of very high CO2 emissions.

Comments

Thanks for your answer Bob. That clarifies a great deal. In pulling data together for you, is there a best after date stamp that you look for? I don't want to spend too much time collating "old" data that would be viewed as irrelevant.

You may be interested in reading the following National Post series on Global Warming

I read a couple of the pages. Specifically the one on Mars global warming and the one on Earth warming being due to solar cycles.

What is stated on those pages doesn't match the data. Mars isn't experiencing global warming. And, well, you can see from your earlier post that there's a disconnect between the 11 year solar cycle and what we've observed since 1850/1880.

Best I can tell Pinocchio authored that site.

You'll have to pardon me. I don't have the energy to read and critique any more pages for you. I just finished plowing through several pages of crap based on a terribly incorrect article from an Australian newspaper.

Here's a little quote from the article:

"All four agencies that track Earth's temperature (the Hadley Climate Research Unit in Britain, the NASA Goddard Institute for Space Studies in New York, the Christy group at the University of Alabama, and Remote Sensing Systems Inc in California) report that it cooled by about 0.7C in 2007. This is the fastest temperature change in the instrumental record and it puts us back where we were in 1930. If the temperature does not soon recover, we will have to conclude that global warming is over."

Problem is, none of the four cited sources say that what the article says that they do.

The Remote Sensing Systems data might have a claim something like that on its initial release, but shortly after publication the main investigator found a mistake in data reporting and corrected their findings.

The other three original sources say nothing of the kind.

I'm pretty much with bob, the little. I tire of people who operate from a basis of rumor and don't bother at least attempting to check original sources.

Do yourself a favor and backcheck some of the stuff that you're using to support your belief system. Perhaps you're getting some BS shoveled your way?

It is obvious from Bob Wallace's post that his field does not require knowledge of the environment, critical thinking, or being honest.

Part of any EIS is to baseline the environment back millions of years. For this reason I have had the pleasure of working with many geologists. I had to explain to two of them that they were telling lies and what the prison time was for making material false statements. Judging from the words that were exchanged in a closed door meeting, theses scientist thought I was an a**hole. The were we assigned and other geologists completed their work. Unfortunately, they had exchanged some email on government computers alluding to the idea that they could make up stuff and everyone was clueless. It made national news and their was a big investigation. Bottom line is that the work in question only soil the waste basket. How I did my job was identified as best practice.

So Bob Wallace the fallacy of your logic is failing to baseline and follow a rigorous process. It seems logical to you that we start looking at global temperatures at the beginning of the industrial age because that is when we started burning coal.

Ken wrote, “you can of course believe the scientist are self-serving liars devoted to doing a bad job in order to cause concern and fear -”

Well Ken, unfortunately many scientists earn a living fearing mongering and judging some of the rants here they do a very good job at it. To be fair, many are honest and is the press and politicians who are doing the fear mongering. I was watching Senate hearings for government funding of a project I had worked on. The former first lady was giving a speech about the 'scientific uncertainty' quoting a GAO report. The speech was very good and I certainly would have been convinced if I did not know it was not true. It took me five minutes to look up the GAO report that was discussing 'schedule uncertainty'. The project will not get done if congress does not fund it. Duhhhh!!!

Kit says: "Part of any EIS is to baseline the environment back millions of years."

Uh, no. I see Kip's knowledge of environmental law is about as accurate as all his other supposed expertise. It's funny how the owner of an "engineering firm" could get everything so wrong. (And funny how he posts here all day every day even though he's running this so-called engineering firm, and funny how he would expect to win over customers with his complete lack of social grace, even if he did actually have an engineering firm, and, well, you get the point. He's a funny guy.)

Of course he could just mean he and his brother finally got that toy train set running down in the basement. And he only needed a little help from the neighborhood kids to figure out all the switches and stuff. Bless his heart.

Here's an observation for those who ever feel inclined to actually pay attention to Kit's rambling: arguing with him is like being in the Special Olympics. You may win, but you're both still retarded.

And Kip, how about brushing off an undergraduate-level English book now and then. It might help you look slightly less foolish, though probably not.

As I read this, I see a lot of hostility out there. For a little levity, perhaps you should watch another movie, that also had a "Project Vulcan". I am referring to the first Austin Powers Movie, in which Dr. Evil threatens to annihilate the world with "molten hot magma"....

I hope that with this posting, my name has not entered the "don't bother reading the text" status.

Want to save the planet, stop building concrete buildings, get rid of your steel products, get rid of plastics totally, plant a tree and build a house from it...
get rid of your car and buy a horse...I would love to see another 100ppm CO2 in the atmosphere, it would help my garden grow better vegetables to start with..Warmer planet, more rain.Why, because it will create more evaporation..oh yeh you forgot about that hey!..
Humans need to think and look at everything that is going on with our planet and the surrounds, including the sun, and include everything in any model thats developed..Jumping up and saying, if we dont do something now we will all die the death of a thousand cuts, is not quite right.. Humans have already survived periods of extreme warmth and extreme cold, extreme levels of CO2 and lows..
It will be interesting if this drop in world temperatures continues, but then ipcc will just change the goal posts and say, its manmade..
Come on, look at what they first said and what there saying now...They have no idea whats going on, but everyone is saying, their right..If that was the case, then they would still be sticking to there guns about what was first said...
There just a pack of nutters with not one correct answer, but they will change there stories just to keep you fooled...

The CO2 is one of the most human produced gas it is in the 25%,Carbon Dioxide is which is very dangerous to the human beings, and it inversly effects the climatic conditions just like rainfall will come in mid of Summer, so these rainfalls are not seasonal, they will effect humans,crops,plants etc.

In Copenhagen, approx. 2500 scientist (i.e. experts) provided their opinion about climate change. Of those, approx. 35 scientist felt that the uncertainty in data did not warrant any concern. The rest (i.e. 2465 give or take) felt that there was significant evidence that anthropogenic CO2 (i.e. man-made CO2, for you armchair experts) did warrant concern and action.

I understand where the denialist are coming from. It is simply a scary thought, pure and simple. Easier to ignore it than to try to address it. In addition, addressing it may require some sacrifice and trade-offs. Now, not only is it a scary thought, but it also may take money out of my pocket. Now, I don't just have reason to ignore it, but I best DENY it and side with the 1% or so scientist that agree with me.

As a scientist, this is great work. It may allow us to isolate where emissions are highest and possibly deal with them at the source. There ARE innovative solutions out there. They need to be given priority. A sense of urgency is required.

Do you want information and advice on aging and health supplements with antiaging benefits like resveratrol, the miracle polyphenol found in red wine? Resveratrol research suggests it has antiaging, anti-inflammatory, anti-cancer, anti-oxidant, and cardiovascular benefits.

Global warming is an issue that is all about funding allocations for science. Sounds more like optimistic opinion than fact, although it is grounded in a long held belief that weather, climate, the air we breathe, the bounty of land and ocean are beyond puny humanity's power to change. Thanks,

This board gets kind of hostile! I wish that people could work together for the betterment of the world and for bigger causes, life is too short and precious
for petty BS. We are destroying our planet and we need to be educated and work together to fix this, not bicker.